As a consumer the most attractive choice is a phone that has a long life with security updates, replaceable battery, replaceable screen, removable sd card, fingerprint scanner, great camera and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. Iâ(TM)ve had an iPhone 6 for ages. Replaced the battery a couple of times (replacement kit with tools was $30 - so easy anyone can do it after watching a video) and screen once (~$50). When a year ago the motherboard went bad and required microsoldering I tossed it and was ready to say goodbye to Apple for good. Looked for an Android alternative, still bitter with Appleâ(TM)s decision to get rid of headphone jack, but didnâ(TM)t see too many consumer-friendly options on Android side either. Seems like everyone is trying to be the next Apple by copying them instead of focusing on what consumers would want (a reliable snappy phone with a long life that can be easily repaired). I ended up buying a used iPhone 6s, replaced with a new battery and have been (mostly) happy until support ends... Is there still hope that a major player will side with the consumer instead of creating expensive toys that have to be thrown away in 2-3 years and create so much e-waste?

Because ever since purchasing LinkedIn and Win10 release they are heavily invested in the âoedataâ business. If the thought of MS collecting your data makes you uncomfortable then Linux or MacOS are the two main alternatives.

I am an iphone user with hardware issues looking to switch to Android. Most people I've spoken to also have hardware issues with their iPhones and I don't trust their quality anymore. I'll admit that I was still under impression until about a week ago that Android phones are cheaper than iPhones, easy to reflash / upgrade with a stock google rom without bloatware and come with removable battery and expandable storage. From the options I've looked at, most Android phones do not meet the above criteria. All of the above are hard requirements (the phone has to meet all of them) - what Android phones still meet these requirements?

Gmail security is not even close to that of most major banks. One of the main reasons for that is unlimited tries on the number of password attempts, no account lockout, and until not that long ago they were allowing http connnections, which are not that difficult to intercept on a public wifi. This is one of the main problems in online security - email providers, and online identity providers, like twitter, facebook, etc... are not as secure as they would like you to believe. Most major banks do have more restrictions in what passwords can be used, how many attempts, https only traffic, etc... They would be the better identity providers if they wanted to be in that business. And yes, gmail with two factor and a strong password, strong forgotten password setup, is still reasonably strong, but most people don't use it and opt for the bare minimum. Then when their email password gets cracked by one of the bots and starts sending spam they change the password to something else thats marginally more secure until the next bot cracks it. One final thought, banks have a different view on privacy than online providers. I don't mind providing my phone number to the bank for risk-based authentication based on ip address. I do mind giving that information up to google and facebook.

What if some online merchants began pricing their products cheaper because they don't have to pay Visa and Mastercard fees. You don't think some consumers would go for it?

Something seems off on this whole thing. They are afraid of 911 style threats... at a movie theater?! The Koreans probably got something else on the executives. Something so good that the execs are giving in to these crazy demands. The whole 911 thing sounds like an alternative explanation for whats really going on.

...to hear how exactly they got him.

I am an infosec veteran and largely agree with the notion that the bad guys are winning. After reading through the comments section, many seem to be of the opinion that "secure" software means that it cannot be defeated by anyone. Thats never going to be the case. Every security system can be defeated, especially when people are involved, which probably accounts for all of them. There is no such thing as a perfectly secure system.

According to TFA, the excuse used by the Chinese government amounts to "wasn't government sponsored, show us some proof".

Have there been any cases where a hack was actually traced to an individual in China? Has the Chinese government followed up in those instances to arrest and try the individuals? I would think that if someone in US were to hack into a Chinese company network they would be arrested and tried.

So when someone places a large bet on the next terrorist attack (or terror alert level rising) is a background check required?

A market liket that sounds like a good idea, but insider trading could become a widespread problem ;)